#14594: Make dot2tex work with matplotlib 1.2.x (as well as older versions)
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
Reporter: aschilling | Owner: sage-combinat
Type: defect | Status: needs_work
Priority: critical | Milestone: sage-5.10
Component: packages: optional | Resolution:
Keywords: dot2tex spkg pyparsing | Work issues: Update `SPKG.txt`,
add `src/` to `.hgignore`, probably remove upstream history
Report Upstream: N/A | Reviewers: Travis Scrimshaw
Authors: Leif Leonhardy | Merged in:
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
Comment (by leif):
Replying to [comment:18 nthiery]:
> Replying to [comment:14 leif]:
> > I'd also like to get some feedback w.r.t. `spkg-check`; it now (IMHO
correctly) returns an error if ''any'' of the tests failed, while it
previously only did if ''the last'' failed.
>
> +1
>
> > Haven't investigated, but it seems at least some of the tests
(`src/tests/test_*`) have prerequisites not commonly installed, and
presumably not necessary for (typical) use with Sage.
>
> I haven't looked at them recently; is there anything beyond graphviz and
latex's preview package?
> Maybe the tkz-berge and friend style files?
After having installed `pdftk`, `spkg-check` still fails for me at least
because of
{{{
IOError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory:
'testgraphs/parsetests/current.dot'
IOError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory:
'testgraphs/parsetests/ports.dot'
IOError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory:
'testgraphs/parsetests/unicode1.dot'
}}}
which doesn't seem to be a regression ... 8-/
They're missing in the original 2.8.7-2 spkg as well as in upstream's
2.8.7 release tarball. But perhaps ''I'm'' just missing something...
Did anyone recently (or ever ;-) ) successfully install the spkg with
`SAGE_CHECK=yes`?
[[BR]]
> > It probably makes sense to exclude these by simply changing the
pattern, or explicitly listing only those reasonable for Sage's purposes.
> >
> > P.S.: Just noticed there are ''only four'' test files, so we may
actually have to ''modify'' some of them instead of simply excluding them.
>
> Both options are fine for me, with a small preference for the first
> one which does not require touching the upstream sources.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/14594#comment:25>
Sage <http://www.sagemath.org>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica,
and MATLAB
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-trac" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
